College Culture and Minimum Legal Drinking Age - Essay Example

Section/# College Culture and Minimum Legal Drinking Age The minimum drinking age has been a topic of extensive critical debates over the last few decades. While the drinking age has increased over time from 18 years to 21 years in the majority of the United States, there are various social and political groups that support a lower minimum drinking age. Government and health experts are making several efforts to control the violations, deaths and misdemeanor accidents through alcohol controlling policies. Alcoholism among the younger generation has been reported to be a major factor in the high number of fatal accidents and deaths. Therefore, governments must be concerned with having countries set suitable drinking ages to reduce these violations. Thus, a great deal of research has been conducted to determine the impacts that are associated with the drinking age and/or alcohol control policies. There is also a significant amount of research available, which indicates a direct relationship between drinking age and poor social outcomes, including higher instances of driving under the influence of alcohol, motor vehicle accidents, poor behavioral traits, physical traumas, and inclination towards substance abuse. In order to identify if a minimum drinking age should remain at 21 years, the following analysis will seek to analyze and discuss the current debates and weigh whether or not a reduction in the drinking age is a policy that well ultimately benefit society. Regardless of the legal perspective that one approaches this issue, the fact remains that college culture is one that places a high level of emphasis on alcohol; and drinking whether legal or illegal. As such, the focus on minimum drinking age and the laws associated with this issue will pay particular attention to the philosophical nexus between whether or not these laws are effective and how they might apply to reducing danger to adolescents within their college years should they be updated. Significant research illustrates that alcohol consumption gives rise to attention deficit during routine activities (Carpenter 134). The onset of this deficit is more evident in young alcohol consumers. In order to evaluate the impacts of alcohol consumption on young consumers, various research has been performed to examine fatalities faced by young consumers in their minor age. According to Smith and Geller, nearly one-third of youth deaths are associated with alcohol consumption in the United States and with increased marketing exposure, the minor youth are more vulnerable to increase their alcohol intake (359). The research further indicated that 50 percent of alcohol advertisements were on TV and/or radio programs whose targeted demographic were ultimately an underage population. Since it is evident that increased media exposure gives rise to the increased pattern of consumption, restrictions on such advertisement can reduce alcohol consumption in the younger population. According to the American Medical Association, it has been evident that the lower drinking age resulted in more fatal accidents and injuries in the youth. Studies performed in 1979 and 1982 noted that fatality within jurisdictions that allowed a drinking age lower than 21 were noticeably higher than those which ascribed to the standard age of 21. The research further claims that implications of legal restrictions on individuals aged 21 years and above reduced drinking habits and related fatalities were observed. The concept of influencing the early age of alcohol intake in young consumers and minors enhances the existence of legal and social pressures and their impacts on reduced alcohol consumption. It is also important to note that most of the young alcohol consumers, especially underage college students, tend to engage in high risk activities, which leaves them even more prone to injury and possible death (Reyna et al. 380). However, a critical analysis of this argument illustrates that it is merely based on philosophical grounds with no empirical research available to back up the argument (Martinez, Garcia, and Sher 407). In other words, many of the researchers who have looked into this issue have merely accepted the fact that young adults are likely to engage in more risky behaviors than their adult counterparts, without demanding any proof of such a standpoint. Advocates of lowering the minimum drinking age further assert that apart from peer pressure, strict laws further instigate violation of such laws in the young generation. This is done out of the belief that by denying otherwise fully adult individuals the right to choice and self-expression, the legislators and individuals responsible for enforcement have dangled before these societal stakeholders a “forbidden fruit” that begs to be plucked. Therefore, attaching personal responsibility to MLDAs further aggravates the situation. However, Reyna et al. provides evidence that supports contradicting notions. Despite negative personal beliefs about laws, people under 21 follow a restrictive alcohol consumption pattern. Since alcohol provision cannot be completely reduced or eliminated in educational settings, legal prohibition induces effective decision making and self-regulation in junior college students and other adolescents under the influence of minimum drinking laws. Reduced alcohol consumption further reflected less risk behaviors in college students along with fewer onsets of physical or mental traumas. Furthermore, converting such laws into social norms can further reduce the risks of alcohol consumption induced by peer pressure (380). While most young consumers experience their first consumption on their 21st birthday, such exposure would take place at an earlier age under lower minimum drinking age laws, which could cause significant impairment of the cognitive function. In addition, cross-sectional studies of European regions, such as France, Holland, and Belgium, have shown varied levels of alcohol consumption in regions having a lower minimum drinking age. Therefore, instead of just peer pressure, influence of aggressive marketing and other laws such as driving laws and blood alcohol concentration (BAC) laws cannot be undermined (Martinez, Garcia, and Sher 410). A critical analysis of raising the minimum drinking age and its relation to child birth rates in teenage mothers indicate a decreasing trend. Furthermore, teenage onset of alcohol use correlated with pregnancy rate indicated that such mothers experienced high levels of premature birth along with low birth rates, having a significant impact on infants’ health. Therefore, increased MLDAs can be associated with increased infant health in the later part of the 20th century. Research has indicated that weak drinking laws provide an understanding of early and unplanned pregnancies and risk occurrence of poor birth outcomes. Furthermore, increased risks of high school and college dropouts are also associated with a lower minimum drinking age. In addition, drinking at an early age has also been correlated with a level of prescription drug misuse along with substance abuse (Hermos et al. 22–30). Studies with regard to individuals who began abusing alcohol prior to the age of 21 years of age indicate that a 30% elevation in the proclivity to use illicit substances was noted within this group as compared to those that abused alcohol only after they became of the legal drinking age. According to Hingson et al., “Excessive Alcohol Consumption is the third leading contributor to preventable death in the United States. Of the 75,000 alcohol-attributable deaths annually in the United States, over 40,000 are acute, primarily injury deaths, which include: 13,600 traffic deaths; 12,474 other unintentional injury deaths; 7,600 homicides; and nearly 7,000 suicide deaths. Injuries are the leading cause of death in the United States” (783). Studies have also indicated that young individuals are more likely to experience physical injuries after using alcohol; therefore, the rate of preventable deaths is higher in this demographic segment. A study conducted by Lovenheim and Slemord indicated that regions which were geographically proximal to another region that had a lower MLDA than 21, the reduction in overall fatalities was minimal. Significant research and continuous lobbying by political and social groups forced states and central governments to raise the minimum drinking age to 21 years. The accidents reported were relatively lesser than the countries having their drinking age below 21. Furthermore, it has been determined that underage drinking costs more than $53 billion annually; including $19 billion from traffic accidents, $29 billion from violent crime, and inestimable losses in human potential (Reyna et al 380). The money that is associated with such a cost is with respect to the damages caused by drunk driving; to include: medical bills, damage to property, legal fees of representation and defense, and all other penalties or costs incurred by underage drinking. A critical analysis of the literature available on the benefits and drawbacks of minimum drinking age laws indicates that there is greater evidence that supports upholding the drinking age to 21 years of age. Further, it has been found that early alcohol consumption patterns in teenagers and adolescents gives rise to substance abuse and binge drinking in the later part of life. Since young consumers are more likely to experience fatalities under the influence of alcohol, the risks of avoidable deaths and severe injuries increase significantly. Although there are arguments indicating that strict minimum drinking age laws encourage adolescents and teenagers to break them, evidence has been found to indicate that adherence of alcohol consumption to personal responsibility is an effective approach to curtailing alcoholism. Several researches and studies have concluded that the alcohol consumption impacts the sexual behaviors that further lead to unplanned pregnancies and premature births. As college culture is not likely to change, it might indeed be time for legislators to strongly consider the relevant impact of existing MLDA laws that currently are responsible for creating tens of thousands of felons each and every year; for no crime larger than drinking before the age of 21. Works Cited Carpenter, Christopher, and Carlos Dobkin. "The Minimum Legal Drinking Age and Public Health." Journal of Economic Perspectives 25.2 (2011): 133–156. Business Source Complete. Web. 20 Sept. 2013. Hermos, John A., Michael R. Winter, Timothy C. Heeren, and Ralph W. Hingson. “Early Age-of-Onset Drinking Predicts Prescription Drug Misuse Among Teenagers and Young Adults: Results from a National Survey.” Journal of Addiction Medicine 2.1 (2008): 22–30. Print. Martinez, Julia A., Miguel A. Muñoz García, and Kenneth J. Sher. “A New Minimum Legal Drinking Age (MLDA)? Some Findings to Inform the Debate.” Addictive Behaviors 34 (2009): 407–410. Print. Reyna et al. “Endorsement of a Personal Responsibility to Adhere to the Minimum Drinking Age Law Predicts Consumption, Risky Behaviors, and Alcohol-Related Harms.” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 19.3 (2013): 380–394. Print. Read More